I hold these truths to be self-evident:
- It is just that Hillary Clinton is the presumptive Democratic nominee. She has 12.7 million votes to Bernie Sanders’s 9.6 million, 1,741 pledged delegates to his 1,458, and 524 Superdelegates to his 40.
- Senator Sanders is right to continue his campaign to the convention, just as Clinton did in 2008. He started his run largely as a gesture, so far as I can tell, to raise important issues and push the party, and nation, in his direction. He is doing just that, to the good of the whole country. Getting his message out is expensive, however, and he has to keep running to raise money. His May 17 Statement on Nevada is consistent with that ambition.
- The media is trying to blow up the recent fracas in Nevada into a neo-1968 Chicago Democratic Convention confrontation in an effort to attract clicks. Here’s the Globe’s version. TV is even more extreme. Their coverage is over-hyped, and reminiscent of the Dean Scream absurdities. Journalists could better use their time by trying to live up to the lofty rhetoric they frequently invoke for their profession and challenging some of Trump’s fabrications rather than gleefully passing them along.
I’m glad Clinton is the presumptive nominee, since I think she will be a better president than Sanders. I applaud the passion of the Sanders supporters. Exactly as Sanders says, they shouldn’t engage in violence, and haven’t, except perhaps in Nevada, which sounds like it was poorly managed from top to bottom. I think contested primaries are good for the eventual nominee. I predict that Sanders will campaign hard for Clinton after she is nominated: on her worst day, as he has said, a President Clinton would be far better than a President Trump. If he really wanted to undercut her, he’d be discussing a third-party challenge, and there hasn’t been any substantive mention of that alternative by him.
What do you think?
which had nothing to do with the DNC in 68 (they were a Weatherman thing in 69). You might be thinking of the police riot at the Chicago 68 convention. I don’t think that is in the cards for Philly this year.
I agree with you about the press, but you have to admit it is an interesting story, in an appalling sort of way. And if everyone continues to act like 6-year-olds, it could have implications for the campaign.
I meant the 1968 counterculture protests at the Chicago Democratic Convention, not the “1968 Days of Rage” which as you note took place in 1969. At least I got the year right. 🙂 Post corrected. Thanks!
It is little of a problem if Sanders plays out the string, concedes after the D.C. primary, and endorses Hillary after perhaps winning some additional concessions (dealing with the platform, etc.) This is the more likely result, and already polls indicate that few Democrats are prepared to vote for Trump (and vice-versa), as is standard in contemporary elections.
However, if Sanders continues to claim that the primary system is “rigged” and he was “cheated” out of the nomination, despite all the evidence to the contrary, it could be more of a problem. Even if it’s a tiny percentage of all voters, it wouldn’t take many to cause an embarrassing scene in Philadelphia. This scenario is less likely, given most of Sanders’ statements to this point, but cannot be counted out since he ran as a true outsider not connected directly with the party until he started running for the party’s nomination.
A lot will depend on how Sanders sees what is best for his future role in championing the issues he’s raised in the primary. If he’s savvy, which I suspect he is given how well he’s done in the primary, then he will handle the endgame well and help work to defeat Trump. That’s the only real way to have influence for his views going into 2016 and beyond.
Watching Morning Joe today, the consensus was that the primary system is rigged and the debate schedule was rigged and the super delegate system cheats the voters. Sanders does not have to make any of these claims. The media and anyone with eyes can see that it’s true.
How many delegates do they get at the convention? 😉
I wish people would drop the hand wringing over the super delegate system. There is absolutely no sign that the super delegates are going to reverse the decision of the pledged delegates, so I don’t see what the problem is. Who is being cheated by super delegates who only confirm the decision of the voters? In fact, it is Sander’s who is using asking super delegates to “cheat the voters” by overturning the pledged delegates.
What is the purpose of a “super delegate” in a party that is supposed to stand for equality?
I don’t think we really need super delegates. I am not sure they are really necessary. But they aren’t actually a problem either. They have never actually overturned the will of the voters and there is absolutely no sign that they will do so in this election. And it is your guy Sanders who is asking them to stand against equality, not Clinton.
If the Democratic rules committee were to change the rules and declare that super delegates do not get to vote at the convention, then the winner of the pledged delegate race — Clinton — would automatically win. Would that solve the “problem” for you?
And why are you ignoring that? Why should I, as a laborer, support a Democratic nominee who has done nothing for me and who promises to do nothing for me? Why should I support a Democratic candidate who thinks that a family can survive on $12 an hour? Why should I support a Democratic candidate who thinks that we need to remain as the only developed nation without health care as a right?
Because of you. That’s why. After ’68 the Democratic party put almost all of the delegates in the hands of primary voters and the results were McGovern then Carter’s come-from-nowhere win in ’76 and historic failure for re-election in ’80. After that party leaders decided to leaven the primary enthusiasms with some earthen grit…
From McGovern, to Carter, to Howard Dean, Wes Clark John Edwards, the fantasies of who Barack Obama was supposed to be and now Bernie Sanders (also including — closer to home — characters like Alan Khazei and Donald Berwick) Democratic primary voters have demonstrated an extravagant talent for building castles in the air and using that to find reality wanting. You are exemplar in this…
That’s why we have super-delegates. Because you feel entitled to the perfect and because you feel entitled to belittle the good for not being the perfect.
They exist because Democratic candidates on down-ballot races have a stake in who the nominee is, because the wrong nominee can be a disaster in those races. I don’t see any particular reason why they should not be given the voice that the super-delegate system gives them, particularly since those opposed don’t seem to do much in off years.
Whether or not super delegates are good or bad, they are not a problem in this election. Like I said, if there were no super delegates, Sanders loses and problem is solved.
What does minimum wage or how you feel about Clinton have to do with whether or not super delegates are a problem? I understand that you don’t like Clinton, but that really has absolutely nothing to do with super delegates. Does it?
Yes, more super delegates support Clinton than Sanders, just like more voters have voted for Clinton than Sanders. If Sanders were even close in the delegate race or popular vote totals we might be having a different conversation (and probably more supers would have declared for him in that case) but he is not close. Sanders is losing and it is not because of super delegates.
The super-delegates exist in a semi-corrupt way, acting like hired muscle in the back of the room, saying “we’re not going to hurt you as long as you do what we want”, and then when everyone does what they want, saying “look, we’ve never hurt anyone, have we?”
If they exist, then they should exist with the premise that yes, they can (and should) decide the results of the nomination process if it is within the margin of error – not “they should exist to vote with the majority” – because the latter position is senseless.
For the entirety of this election, they were used as an added weight on the scale to change the discourse. With each election, the narrative always included “… but Sanders is significantly down in superdelegates”, making him into a fringe candidate from the very start.
No one made Bernie Sanders a fringe candidate from the start other than Bernie’s party registration (Independent) and his clear desire to operate on the fringes of our imperfect system. He seems to have been pretty proudly on the fringes for most of his career.
And Superdelegates are not group-texting as we speak trying to pick what sort of bourbon and cigars they’ll bring to their backroom deals. Superdelegates have had zero effect on this race whatsoever. This whole “system is rigged” line is not only getting tired but now making us all look very very bad.
We would all be well served to relax and stop acting as if our worst assumptions about both candidates will come true. Bernie will concede and endorse after California, and Clinton will not invade the Middle East and deregulate banking the second she gets to Washington. The party is not crumbling because we no longer win in WV. The Obama coalition is big, strong, broad and poised for growth. As long as we stick together we will be fine.
…if the above is a pro- or anti-superdelegate comment. They are a fraction of the delegate total. They cannot on their own override a clear mandate from the primary/caucus process even if every single one of them voted for a different candidate.
…either Plato’s Republic or Aristotle’s Politics? There is a role for rank and file AND a role for those with deeper ties to the party as well as the elected officials who run under the party’s banner. Why shouldn’t DNC members have their own voice in choosing the nominee of the party they are charged with governing? Why shouldn’t elected officials, many of whom often have worked with the candidates and have insights we don’t have also have a voice in the process. They will have to work most closely with the eventual President after all. Can we PLEASE remember that this is a nomination process and NOT an election?!
Particularly the ones in red states saying they could work with a President Trump if need be. They are transactionally oriented politicians first and foremost. What’s good for the individual super delegate might not be what’s good for the party or the majority of its members. And certainly what’s good for the party is not always good for the country.
That said, Clinton won this primary fair and square and I am sick of the whining from the Bernie corner about process questions particularly since it rests on double standards like celebrating his caucus wins or super delegate endorsements while bashing them as undemocratic when they go Clinton’s way.
Not to mention she is winning more popular votes and pledged delegates than he is which is the literal definition of who the more popular candidate with primary voters is. It’s not Bernie. At this point you really have to endorse conspiracy theories to argue Bernie somehow would have won this primary if only the media reported it differently or the super delegates voted their conscience. There ended up being a decent number of debates too. The primary electorate decided that Clinton should be the nominee be wide margins. His cause and campaign should continue, but this dream has died.
Nobody is suggesting that their influence be bigger than that. FWIW, I’m a much bigger fan of Politics than The Republic, but transactional or not, they will have to work with the President in ways most of the rest of us will not. Unlike philosopher kings they are not inherently better than, but rather they WERE elected by, the rest of us, to exercise their judgement just as they would on legislation. Of course politics would dictate that they might be persuadable on this as with any other vote. I just can’t stand the how dare they vote their own conscience/preference attitude on this that some seem to have.
…should be paid close attention to. They might have a better handle on which candidate has a better shot in a political environment that is hostile by default.
I tried to watch that this AM. Scarborough has an agenda that mixes the mainstream media ideology and conservatism. He wants to make it into something big.
Scarborough has an agenda, but so does Rachel Maddow. His faith in unregulated capitalism annoys me as does her faith in the wisdom and empathy of the Democratic elite.
Scarborough & Mika B. keep their thumb on the scales for Trump.
Remember that Trump has hired Roger Stone, one of Nixon’s troublemakers.
Stay skeptical.
Honestly, I’ve known a lot of lefties and while they are passionate and occasionally throw insults, I have rarely heard violent threats or death threats from them. The right wing, on the other hand…
The system is not rigged because the candidate who is leading the nomination by every conceivable relevant metric — total votes, elected delegates, states won — will get the nomination. The super-delegates may or may not be a good idea, but they are irrelevant given this situation.
The only way that the nomination would be “rigged” is if the party went against the will of the voters and handed the nomination to someone other than the leader. This is what the #NeverTrump crowd wanted on the Republican side and apparently what a handful of Sanders supporters want now.
You show up, you vote, pretty straight forward.
for the candidate that has made it though the money primary, the media primary, the Conventional Wisdom primary, the Best and Brightest primary, et nauseum.
This is how to rig things, Christopher–not by tricksey rulings from the chair but by manufacturing a narrow consensus and making sure all the viable candidates are the ones who conform to it.
Pretty straightforward.
The couple of ideas I’ve come up with aren’t realistic.
evidently real.
https://lasvegassun.com/news/2016/may/16/post-convention-death-threats-democratic-official/
I don’t want to downplay death threats, but given the heated atmosphere, I do.
The death threat they quote sounds like more bluster than serious threat to me. Obviously, no one should harass the chair, and Sanders should denounce this personally, but I’ll bet there are few if any actual, serious death threats.
he did not address his supports actions, he only added fuel to the fire. Sanders is directly responsible for the actions based on his rhetoric same as we blamed Trump when his supporters started attacking people. It’s the same thing.
I don’t know what Sanders said in the wake of this, but calling him responsible in the same way as Trump is unfair.
It’s easier when we can blame Republicans, but it’s honest to discuss Sanders in the same light. The lies about the election being rigged, when the facts are that he is losing, that is directly responsible for Nevada.
Josh Marshall had an interesting post this morning.
I voted for sanders in the primary. I will likely not vote for hillary clinton in the general. I am still undecided.
I have a lot of mixed feelings about the election. The information that has been reported by the media in this election cycle I believe justifies a vote for clinton as well as a write in for sanders.
Trump is becoming enough of a reason to vote for hillary clinton. Although in reality it is hard to say what will happen when either get elected. Congress prevents anyone from being effective and it’s hard to say where each will put their focus. Trump may focus all of his energy into the wall and deportation and be wildly unsuccessful, while clinton might quietly pass a lot of pro wall street legislation that moves income inequity more to the right.
The death threats and general animosity in nevada cannot be justified, even if the reasons are valid. However, you cannot blame bernie sanders for it or his campaign, while people should blame donald trump for the violence he incited.
I have seen in this election some of the reality of the election process.
I think we have to realize there are many people who support bernie sanders who didn’t show up to vote, or at the last minute gave into the fear that he might be unelectable in a general election and pulled the lever for hillary clinton. All of the suppressed votes and closed primaries doesn’t really change that. Hillary clinton’s supporters showed up and voted.
However, we do need to realize that while the superdelegate system is not going to affect the tally of the delegates in determining the nominee, it did affect the outcome of the election. It was for some people the reason not to participate in the beginning and possibly the reason why some who earnestly like sanders and agree with his policies voted for clinton instead.
Voter suppression and closed primaries also gave momentum to clinton which determined the outcome of the race.
I have two, really solid reasons to vote for hillary clinton, that I am pro-choice and that trump is running. But I have a dozen reasons not to vote for her, including her foreign policy positions, her vote for the iraq war specifically, her refusal to release her paid speech transcripts and the reality of what the speeches mean, her lack of clear position on the following issues; gay rights, pipeline, and trans pacific partnership; the number of investigations and allegations surrounding her personally and professionally, and the reality that bill clinton and everything that was bad about him including deregulation and capitulation with republicans will be in the white house again.
I have a dozen reasons to vote for sanders and a few reservations. Reasons to vote for him. Dedication to fixing the healthcare system, plan to invest in public infrastructure and create jobs, small donor funded campaign proving integrity and organization, voting record that indicates opposition to wall st as well as public speeches that mirror that, dedication to gmo labeling, a more anti war, anti intervention foriegn policy stance along with voting against the iraq war, and a clear voting record and support against fracking and other environmental catastrophes. Plus pro-choice, anti trade agreement, etc.
My reservations are about the free college plan which is financial questionable and maybe not even a good solution. Colleges do not seem to actually be preparing young people for the world and maybe having several million more people with liberal arts degrees and no practical skills does not make for a better country. We need to change our education system, it’s cost prohibitive for a reason. The minimum wage hike. It could be good for the economy it could be bad. While countless academic papers show the economic benefits of it, as a low wage worker I have seen first hand the reality of how employers make decisions after substantial increases in the minimum wage. Sanders also lack political and organizational infrastructural to affect real change in congress, but then again so does everyone including clinton and trump, just to different degrees. And also tad devine, sanders’ political consultant, you know that guy. Also I am not sure there are viable options for fixing the affordable health care act, congress might have doomed us to leave this as our only option to have subsidized health care for low income people. Also some of bernie sanders supports are unreasonable, contribute nothing to the process and are the kind of stereotyped liberals that republicans talk about who seem to expect a list of free stuff with no real plan on how to pay for it.
But really, I am growing tired of putting my hopes on seeing change come only through elected representatives. I like that Massachusetts has a ballot imitative process and it encourages me to participate. I want to see a national ballot initiative process. It is clear we are not going to pass change through a legislative body, and we do need real change. Democrats and republicans are leading us down a road of steady wealth redistribution from the poor to the wealthy. Income inequity is real, and at the end of the day it might be the only thing that really matters as money informs all other public policy.
but I did want to underscore that my comment was specifically was about Sanders and his rhetoric were inflammatory, and it has repercussions. There was fighting at the NV convention. It was an embarrassment to the democratic process. We need to acknowledge that and the cause and effect of inflaming groups. Sanders’ words have an impact, it’s up to him how he wants to use them. His actions were disappointing and embarrassing.
The Sanders quote I saw was a justification, and included more about things being “rigged.” I am not sure what the goal is at this point. It certainly is not to see a Democrat in the White House, or to see a Democratic majority in the Senate.
Perhaps the Sanders people are doing now what I wish Massachusetts liberals would do: make a demonstration of political power by making it manifest that the party fails without the support of the liberal bloc. But it is strange because this is so very venomous and personal (rather than being about policy), and because Sanders himself was never a Democrat at all until last year. It can’t really be about platform at this point, as they seem to be sandbagging their own planks. Is a prime time speaking slot worth this?
Maybe the object is to empower a wave of liberal candidates who might spring up during the next mid-terms. But at what cost!
OK. Then remarks by random people at Trump rallies aren’t real death threats either. This isn’t the kind of thing where you get to declare seriousness based on how much you agree with the person’s ideology.
But of note, Trump supporters have engaged in actual violence.
I see.
n/t
For whom? For labor? For the middle class? What has she or her neoliberal Third Way Democrats ever done for us?
I stopped believing in Santa Claus when I was about five years old. I stopped believing in “Third Way” Democrats when I was fifty.
Your profile here describes yourself as a former supporter of Rush Limbaugh. Your commentary here reflects Mr. Limbaugh’s fact-free animosity towards Ms. Clinton.
Perhaps when you put Mr. Limbaugh on the shelf alongside Santa Claus your commentary might have more credibility.
So you attack me. Nice, very nice. Your lack of civility is coupled with your abundance of ignorance. That does seem to be the case with so many.
I learned long ago that arguing about evolution with Creationists or about Climate Change with Deniers is an utter waste of time and benefits them and their failed ideas more than anything else.
I’ve given up attempting to respond to your “questions“. Your commentary makes it clear that you ignore or reject everything that doesn’t agree with your biases.
If you don’t like the tone of my responses to your commentary, then I suggest you reexamine the tone of your commentary.
At least the all knowing Tom did not call you a fascist))) He is the house Stalinist on this blog; he simply cannot tolerate dissidents.
.. and I think it is a legitimate ‘attack.’ If, in fact, you are a former supporter of Rush Limbaugh it’s fair game, I think, to ask to what degree you continue to support Rush Limbaugh’s view of Hillary Clinton. I hope the answer is ‘not at all’ but it’s hard to accept that in the face of some of your rhetoric…
At the very least, you are employing the same sort of minimize the real and maximize the imagined that is on page one of the GOP playbook.
The extent to which Sen. Sanders troublesome qualities are minimized, if not completely glossed over, is, coincidentally (or not), about the same extent Hillary Clinton’s troublesome qualities are maximized, when not actually wholesale fiction. This is different only in scale from the gloss put on George Dubya’s ‘war’ record in contrast to the wholesale lies about John Kerry: one’s real sins are overlooked and the other has sins manufactured on his behalf. The sheer fact of Donald Trump being taken at all seriously while Hillary Clinton has a ‘credibility problem’ is just another, drastically more extreme, iteration on this theme.
I’m not saying you’re the original when it comes to doing this but I am the one saying you’re hugging that curve like a car with a suspension finely tuned to it. If, indeed, you spent any amount of time tuning your suspension that way, it’s entirely legitimate to ask if you know how to tune it some other way…
She is by far more prepared to actually do the work than Sanders or anyone else. That’s what I look for in a President. I’m more interested in putting ideologues in Congress.
Apparently the moniker “Crooked Hillary” which Trump saddled your candidate with is going to stick. If at the debate Trump brings up the process used to nominate her, and “super delegates” might not be understood well by the general population, she will have to try to explain arcane rules. Some Bernie supporters may feel disenfranchised. Her upper hand talking about the riots at Trump’s rallies just disappeared.
It’s turning into an open door for the (presumptive) Johnson/Weld ticket.
The Party consists of three groups:
1) Delegates chosen by rank and file voters
2) Members of the DNC
3) Democratic elected officials
ALL of these groups have a voice in the process and IMO rightfully so.
will be dirtier and more cutthroat than any we have seen and all with the media’s complicity. The childishness of name calling has brought us to new lows, but it gets ratings. Trump has brought new political interest, but from people used to a resolution of a problem “after these commercials”.
Sanders has brought new interest in politics by young people, but good luck explaining “super delegates” on a “vine” or in a tweet.
I’m not so worried about money in politics (commercials can be ignored) as I am the media’s focusing on “national enquirer” type of reporting. The debates may save us and provide the necessary give and take on IDEAS which people can use to form their opinions, but I don’t hold out much hope.
I know some would object to the media playing gatekeeper, but this time around I wish they really had conspired to create a Trump blackout by not reporting every stupid thing he says, at least without saying why he’s wrong, and not basing debate participation and podium placement on polls.
According to the survey, Clinton leads Trump 44 percent to 42 percent among likely Granite State voters, with about 7 percent still undecided.
And according to the poll, if Sanders were the Democratic nominee, he’d beat Trump today decisively in New Hampshire — by 16 points, 54-38.
Story here
And then there is this:
Americans are nearly split between their choice of Trump or Clinton; her margin over Trump narrows from 5 points last week to 3 points this week to 48 percent to 45 percent.
Just call me an old goat, but y’all are going to blame me for all of this.
say here, but not your vote or your Sanders.
There are two facts that people on either side of the primary have to stop denying:
1) Hillary Clinton is the Duly and Fairly Democratic Nominee
End of discussion. This has been the case since at least the New York. It’s over.
2) This will be a close general election
Trump now has 90% of Republicans backing him in recent polls, the full weight of the RNC and its fundraising arms, and some PAC donors reaching out. The Kochs and Bill Kristol might sit this one out, but so what? His floor is at least the states and percentage of the popular vote McCain got in 2008 with far more adverse headwinds with an unpopular Republicsn incumbent.
Hillary is the nominee and she and her supporters should take Trump seriously.
I’ll be embarrassed as an American if it’s even close. The oppo writes itself as I have said repeatedly, but we have to pound Trump again and again with it. There are polls making traditionally red states competitive. I think we should try to, and may even succeed in, marginalizing Trump to the Goldwater states. I don’t think he hits McCain levels even without our help.
And I do hope it adopted by the campaign.
Clinton is winning the Democratic primary for a very simple reason: Sanders did not appeal to minorities. I like Sanders and wish he was winning, but he isn’t. I do think there are some problems with the primary system and I think that caucuses are a terrible way to decide anything and that they don’t really count as democratic – they structurally disenfranchise parents (who have to watch their children) and people who have to work during the caucus times. I think the primary system needs some reforms and it is useful for Sanders to point that out.
But ultimately, the reason Sanders is not going to be the Democratic nominee is that Clinton won the primaries with a large minority population by an overwhelming amount. The structural problems with our primary process probably increased her lead, but they are not the reason she is winning. I believe that Sander’s policies would be better for most minorities, but he failed to make that case and so he lost. That is entirely his fault.
It is unfortunate that many of Sander’s supporters are unwilling to accept that he is not going to win because of his failings as a candidate. To the extent that they can push for a more democratic primary process, they can accomplish something useful. But whining and complaining about how unfair the process is won’t help anyone.